International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)

ISSN (Online): 2319-7064

Index Copernicus Value (2016): 79.57 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391

Ombudsman as a Watchdog of Administration in

India
Bini R. A.
B.A.L.L.B(HONS), III Year, School of Excellence in Law, Chennai

Abstract: Ombudsman is a public officer who acts independently and non-patisanly and his function is to supervise the administration.
He deals with the specific allegations or complaints from the public against administrative injustice and maladministration. The duties
of an Ombudsman are to investigate complaints and attempt to resolve them, usually through recommendations or mediation. For a
nation to prosper, the administrative side of the nation has to function properly and efficiently and it has to be ensured that there is no
corruption in the sphere of administration, because corruption is the biggest hindrance in the development of any nation. The
Ombudsman plays a vital role in tackling the issue of corruption. In India, this role is played by the Lokpal in the Centre and the
Lokayuktas in the State level. This paper traces the evolution of the institution of Ombudsman and analyses how he acts as a watchdog
of administration in the Indian context.

1. Introduction In 1919, Finland adopted Ombudsman system. In Denmark,

In modern times, all democratic countries are manifested
with large powers in the hands of administrative authorities
having vast discretionary powers. Due to this wide
discretionary powers a feeling has arisen in the public mind
that vesting of such vast powers would led to the abuse or
misuse of power by administrative authorities resulting in
maladministration and corruption. The traditional organs in a
democracy do not provide an adequate and effective control
mechanism over the administration. Lack of such a
mechanism may negate democratic values. The quest for an
effective control mechanism over the administration can be
done through Ombudsman.
the institution of Ombudsman has adopted in 1954. The
Ombudsman has been empowered to supervise all State
administration. Complaints can be made directly to the
Ombudsman.
Norway [3] established Ombudsman system in 1963. In
New Zealand, it was adopted in 1962 by the Parliamentary
Commissioner (Ombudsman) Act, 1962. The Act of 1962
has been replaced by the Ombudsman Act, 1975. This Act
provides for appointment of one or more Ombudsman and in
the case of more than one, one of them is designated as the
Chief Ombudsman for the allocation of work among them
and also for co-ordination among them.

2. Ombudsman In England, the Ombudsman called Parliamentary

Ombudsman is a Scandinavian word. It means an officer or
commissioner. In its special sense, it means a commissioner
who has the duty of investigating and reporting to
Parliament on citizens‟ complaints against the Government
[1]. An Ombudsman has no legal powers except power of
inquiry. In simple words, Ombudsman is an officer of
Parliament whose main function is to investigate the
complaints or allegations against the administration. The
main object of the institution of Ombudsman is to safeguard
the citizens against misuse of the powers of the
administration. Due to the Ombudsman, the error committed
by the administrative or executive officials are exposed. The
complaints or allegations of the citizens are investigated by
the experienced persons who are members of the department
concerned. The purpose of the Ombudsman is to control the
administration and thus give protection to the citizens
against injustice brought about by faulty administration [2].
3. Historical Background
The institution of Ombudsman first came into operation in
Scandinavia. The institution was established in Sweden in
1809. In Sweden an Ombudsman can investigate a case on
the complaint by a person or suo moto. He can recommend
action to Parliament not only against public officials but also
against Ministers against whom he has received complaints.
Commissioner has been established by the Parliamentary
Commissioner Act, 1967. Complaints against the
administration cannot be made directly to the Ombudsman.
It can be made to the Ombudsman only through a member of
the House of Commons. In Australia, two-tier Ombudsman
system has been adopted by the Ombudsman Act, 1976.
There is Ombudsman system at the Centre and each State
has separate Ombudsman.
Ombudsman in India Necessity
The administration in India has been acquiring vast powers
in the name of socio-economic development. They discharge
not only the administrative functions but also quasi-
legislative and quasi-judicial functions. Therefore chances
for administrative excesses and abuse of powers abound.
Therefore, close supervision over the administration, and a
mechanism for redressal of grievances become essential.
The judiciary, Parliament and the executive have not been
successful in controlling them. The courts, have expanded
their supervision over the administration but still it is not
sufficient.
PRATAP SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB [4]
The Supreme Court has observed that the courts cannot
substitute their discretion for that of the official who has
been conferred with the powers under law.

Volume 7 Issue 3, March 2018

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART2018600 DOI: 10.21275/ART2018600 411
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2016): 79.57 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
In the words of Jain and Jain, “The legislature has no
mechanism at its disposal to probe into administrative faults
and lapses in individual cases.” Wade [5] observed that the
consciousness of the Ombudsman‟s vigilance has a healthy
effect on the whole administration making it more sensitive
to public opinion and to the demands of fairness.
4. Initial Setup
The Central Government had took some steps to create the
Ombudsman system. The Administrative Reforms
Commission headed by Moraji Desai had recommended for
the adoption of Ombudsman system in India. The
Commission submitted its report on October 20, 1966. The
Commission propounded a scheme for setting up an
Ombudsman system in India. While the Commission did
drew largely from the experiences of other countries in
drafting its schemes, nevertheless, it was sui generis in many
respects and contained a number of peculiar features of its
own to meet the special circumstances in India, viz., much
larger population than other countries having the
Ombudsman system; federal structure; parliamentary
government with ministerial responsibility. The Government
of India accepted the recommendations of the Commission.
The term Lokpal was coined in 1963 by Laxmi Mall
Singhvi, a member of parliament during a parliamentary
debate about grievance mechanisms. The word Lokpal was
derived from the Sanskrit words “Lok” (people) and “Pala”
(protector/caretaker), meaning „Caretaker of People‟ [6].
The second definitive step was taken towards the creation of
the Ombudsman system in India when in 1969 [7], the Lok
Sabha enacted the Lokpal and Lokayukta Bill, 1968. The
Bill followed the model suggested by the Commission with
a few deviations. One major deviation made by the bill was
to confine the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman to the central
sphere only leaving the states out of its purview whereas the
commission had suggested one comprehensive scheme
covering the Centre-State administration as a whole. Before
the bill could be passed by the Rajya Sabha, the Lok Sabha
was dissolved and, consequently, the bill lapsed. A second
attempt was made in 1971 when another bill was introduced
in the Lok Sabha, but again the bill aborted owing to the
dissolution of the Lok Sabha. A third attempt was made in
1977, when a new bill, entitled the Lokpal Bill, 1977, was
introduced in the Lok Sabha. The bill was referred to the
Joint Select Committee of the two Houses of Parliament
which presented its report to the Houses in July, 1978. But
the bill lapsed again with the dissolution of the Lok Sabha.
The Lokpal Bill was presented before the Parliament in the
year 2001, but lapsed on account of dissolution of 13th Lok
Sabha. Each time the Bill was introduced in the House, it
was referred to some committee for improvements and
before the Government could take a final stand in the matter
of the House was dissolved. So far, all attempts to establish
the Ombudsman system at the central level have proved
futile.
THE LOKPAL ACT:
In 2010 a draft [8] was created by the United Progressive
Alliance to create an Ombudsman tasked with tackling
Volume 7 Issue 3, March 2018
www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART2018600 DOI: 10.21275/ART2018600
political corruption. The draft was circulated to various
ministries for their review. It provided a mechanism for
filing complaints against the prime minister, ministers and
MPs. However, civil society groups rejected it as a toothless
body with only recommendatory powers.
Anna Hazare started an indefinite hunger strike on 5 April
2011 at Jantar Mantar in New Delhi to pressure the
government to create an Ombudsman with the power to deal
with corruption in public places as envisaged in the Jan
Lokpal Bill. The fast led to nationwide protests in support.
The fast ended on 9 April 2011, one day after the
Government accepted his demands. The government issued
a gazette notification on the formation of a joint committee,
consisting of government and civil society representatives,
to draft the legislation. A Joint Drafting Committee was
established, consisting of ten members which was chaired by
Pranab Mukherjee. The Committee set 30 June 2011 as the
deadline to complete the drafting process.
The Lokpal Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha on 22
December 2011 and passed by voice voting on the first day
of the three-day extended session of the Lok Sabha, on 27
December 2011, after a marathon debate that lasted over ten
hours. The Lokpal body was not given the constitutional
status as the Constitutional Amendment Bill, which provided
for making the Lokpal a constitutional body, was defeated in
the house.
DINESH TRIVEDI v. UNION OF INDIA [9]
The Supreme Court has recommended that till the
constitution of an Institution like Ombudsman, a High Level
Committee to be appointed by President of India in
consultation with Prime Minister of India and Speaker of
India. The Committee can be directed to monitor the
investigation with regard to nexus between criminals and
politicians, bureaucrats, media persons and some member of
judiciary as disclosed in Vohra Committee Report.
The Lokpal Bill was passed under Article 252 [10] of the
Constitution of India, which is a legislation pertaining which
pertains to the power of Parliament to legislate for two or
more States by consent and adoption of such legislation by
any other State. As of February 2018, and ever since the
related Act of Parliament was passed in India, the Indian
Government is yet to appoint a Lokpal.
LOKAYUKTA:
In spite of several attempts, the Ombudsman (Lokpal) has
not been established at the Centre but some States have
adopted the Ombudsman system (called Lokayukta). The
institution of Lokayukta has been established in several
States by enacting a statute. In some States Uplokayuktas
have also been appointed.
Maharashtra was the first state to introduce Lokaykta
through the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upalokayuktas Act
in 1971. Presently there are no Lokayuktas in the States of
Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir,
Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizorom, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tamil
Nadu, Tripura and West Bengal.
412
 International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR)
ISSN (Online): 2319-7064
Index Copernicus Value (2016): 79.57 | Impact Factor (2015): 6.391
Generally, the Lokayukt [11] under the State Acts is a References
retired Judge of the Supreme Court or a retired Chief Justice
or Judge of a High Court. His appointment is made by the [1] Wade, Administrative Law, p. 75(Fourth Edn)
Governor as a result of consultation between the Chief [2] M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative
Minister, Chief Justice of High Court concerned and the Law, p.969(Sixth Edn)
Leader of the Opposition. But in this process the opinion of [3] Kailash Rai, Administrative Law, p.476(First Edn)
the Chief Justice has primacy as he alone is more equipped [4] AIR 1964 SC 72
to recommend names of a retired Chief Justice or a Judge. [5] Wade, Administrative Law, p. 75(Fourth Edn)
The term of appointment is for five or six years. The [6] Meenakshi, Short Essay on Jan Lokpal Bill. Retrieved
Lokayukt gets the same salary, perquisites and privileges 01 March 2018
which he was enjoying as a Judge or Chief Justice before [7] M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative
retirement. In some of the States, provision is also made for Law, p.987(Sixth Edn)
appointment of Uplokayukt to share the workload of the [8] Draft Lokpal Bill, 2010. Lawyersclubindia.com.
Lokayukt. But complaints against ministers and officers of Retrieved 01 March 2018
the rank of Secretary are generally to be enquired into by the [9] (1997) 4 SCC 306
Lokayukt. [10] Government tables Lokpal bill in Lok Sabha. The Times
of India. Retrieved 01 March 2018
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: [11] M.P. Jain & S.N. Jain, Principles of Administrative
Law, p. 994(Sixth Edn)
M.P. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT v. STATE OF [12] (2004) 8 SCC 788
MADHYA PRADESH [12] [13] (2002) 8 SCC 1
The Supreme Court has ruled that the Governor may act
independently in the matter of grant of sanction of
prosecution against the Chief Minister or any Minister as in
the matters there would be real danger of bias in the opinion
rendered by the Council of Ministers and even in the case of
grant of sanction to prosecute an ex-minister when decision
of the Council of Ministers is shown to be irrational and
based on non-consideration of relevant facts.

JUSTICE K.P. MOHAPATRA v. RAM CHANDRA

NAYAK [13]
The Supreme Court while dealing with functions of Lokpal
under s.7 of Orissa Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 1995 has
held that the functions of Lokayukta are of utmost
importance in seeking that unpolluted administration of
State is maintained and maladministration as defined under
s.2 (h) of the Act is exposed, so that appropriate action
against such maladministration and administrator can be
taken. The investigation which Lokpal is required to carry
out is quasi-judicial in nature.

5. Conclusion
Corruption is the deep rooted cause and it stands as the
biggest obstacle in the development of a nation. In order to
tackle this issue of corruption, the institution of Ombudsman
plays the most important role and in the Indian context this
role is played by the Lokpal. At present, the institution of
Ombudsman is considered to be made only for the problem
of corruption. This problem of corruption cannot be tackled
only through legislation; a concentrated and unified effort is
required from the society as a whole. For corruption to
spread its root so deep into the system of any nation the
citizens of the nations are equally to be blamed because it is
not only the administrative officials who are at the wrong
side. The only solution for this problem in India is the
establishment of the Lokpal, because it is the demand of
time. The consciousness of the existence of Ombudsman
will make the administration more sensitive to the public
opinion and to the demand of fairness. Also it is better to
give constitutional status to the institution of Ombudsman.

Volume 7 Issue 3, March 2018

www.ijsr.net
Licensed Under Creative Commons Attribution CC BY
Paper ID: ART2018600 DOI: 10.21275/ART2018600 413